Andromeda 209
Andromeda: A Review
For those of you unfamiliar with the Show, "Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda" has a lot of exceptionally familiar elements. The broad underlying theme is pretty palatable, 300 years before, there was a grand federa...er...Commonwealth (not unlike Massachusetts or Virginia) that fell when one of its member species, the Nietzcheans, staged a bloody betrayal. During the beginning skirmishes of the war, the Andromeda Ascendant , led by Captain Dylan Hunt (Kevin Sorbo) was attacked by the Nietzscheans, basically got his ass kicked and, after evacuating ship, snuck the Andromeda into the outer reaches of a black hole, hiding himself from the Nietzschean onslaught, ostensibly to keep the Nietzscheans from taking and using the ship against the Commonwealth.
In the Black Hole, time dilates, so to Dylan only a small amount of time has gone by for him while the universe at large gets more chaotic and is reduced to a less ordered, and considerably more dangerous, place. With no one dominating force and the Nietzscheans themselves reduced to intra-pride (as their tribal elements are called) warfare and fighting. In this time, a ship, the Eureka Maru, with her captain Beka Valentine and assorted crew are hired to tow the Andromeda from the Black Hole from which it is stuck. The assumption being, I suppose, that it was dead in space as it had not pulled itself out and, in the post commonwealth world, is a valuable and powerful ship to own.
Hilarity ensues, of course, with the end result being Dylan asking the crew of the Maru to join him in his quest to restore the grand systems commonwealth in all of its justice, fairness and glory. They agree as they figure living on a beautiful ship is more likely to work out for them them living in squalor doing tow jobs, oh, and this commonwealth thing sounds fine too.
It's actually not a bad premise for a show, you have the broad story arc, the plucky and clever crew and a tense universe to fly around in. And to give the producers of the show credit, the universe they created is not the buffed, dusted, windexed and polished one of the Star Trek universe, although they are clearly closely related. (The Andromeda is always very clean, but I digress). The Andromeda universe has one particularly grisly race in it, the Magog. The Magog are a basically very disgusting race which attack by swarming and overtaking any resistance, then, after subduing their foe, using them as nests for their eggs, in a very "Alien" type fashion. They are pretty nasty though.
Andromeda has come under fire, rightly so, for being derivative, "Star-Trek Lite", as it were. I agree with this, as Andromeda clearly has its derivative parts. Where Star Trek has the Federation, Andromeda has the Systems Commonwealth. Where star Trek had Warp Drive, Andromeda has the Slip Stream. And so on...
The question then becomes, are its derivations a problem? I assert that they are not, it's almost as if its creators said "Well, we have to go faster than light, what dopey apparatus shall we use?" , accepting the need for certain concepts to be necessary elements for a science fiction space opera to have.
It should be clear by now that I like Andromeda. Why? It's basically a likeable cast doing interesting things with some pretty okay cgi space battles. In fact, the cast is very strong. I never watched Hercules so I came into it not expecting much from the lead, if anything being surprised at his performance. I mean, we're not talking Sir Lawrence Olivier here, but he's good. You'll recognize his Second-in-command from the short lived second part of Forever Knight, after it had moved to USA, and she's likeable too.
It's worth pointing out that Canada apparently took the lead in the space race, so rah rah to our neighbors to the north! Like many of its syndicated brethren, Andromeda is filmed in Canada using mostly Canadian actors. It's not a criticism at all, but it is funny that the Canadian accent is the one behind each actor.
Andromeda clearly isn't perfect. Whoever was in charge of naming the cast was clearly a mental case. The actors all have names that were thought out way too much: "Trance Gemini", "Seamus Zelazy Harper", "Beka Valentine", "Tyr Anasazi". The names remind me of bad fan fiction. That said, the ship names are pure sci-fi poetry: "Andromeda Ascendant", "Balance of Peace", "Pax Magellanic", "Eureka Maru". So it's a mixed blessing. They are creative people, and sometimes, they get more than enough rope to hang themselves.
There are some very good things about Andromeda. For instance the way they handle the ship's artificial intelligence is hugely entertaining. And the ship itself is vast, with a complement of 4000 when fully staffed (which makes you wonder how a crew of 7 can make it work, but hey! It's all about androids.) You also get a feeling that there is more going on that just that one ship with its one crew, and the larger mission is a compelling one.
Whether or not you watch Andromeda will most likely depend on which episode you enjoy (or are subjected too) the first time. There are some episodes that are frankly embarrassing. Beka, for instance, is the daughter of a (now dead) drug smuggler and addict. So of course she is in danger of becoming one herself and in one episode, it details her descent into addiction and her fast, predictable recovery near the end of the episode. It's a hugely annoying episode which makes you want to stab the thumbs down button on your Tivo. But then there are episodes like the "Mathematics of Tears", in which a sister ship of the Andromeda, the "Pax Magellanic" is discovered, which really make you want to see more.
In fact what drove me to suggest this article was the season finale "...its Hour Come Round At Last". In the grandest tradition of golden era Hollywood serials, it is probably one of the strongest episodes to date, the cast comfortable with their characters and each other. I won't say much about this, but it was very good, and almost horrifying.
If you know me and my taste, you'll know that one of the things I judge sci-fi TV by is the quality of its space battles. Andromeda, well, has them. I'm not going to say that I'm disappointed by them, because I think they rock, and they do, but there is some final editing or gamma trick they aren't making, and it makes the battles look as if someone messed with the contrast or something, but the battles are generally very watchable and fun. That said, whoever came up with the slipstream sequences (while in slipstream, mind you, not the transitions into slipstream, which are bad ass), should be kicked in the stomach. The travel sequences in slipstream are cartoonish at best.
In short, Andromeda is derivative and annoying, but you'll like it despite its faults.
Kirk killing Spock would have been better. (Score:1)
On the other hand, the Magog are a much better-designed and more intimidating race than the Klingons ever were, even before their treaty with the Federation castrated them.
Well, maybe the writers did not misinterpret (Score:1)
Re:Andromeda disappoints me. (Score:1)
Stargate: SG-1.
It's based off the movie,
but it's been going for four or five
seasons (produced under Showtime, actually)
and is pretty good...
if you can find someone to carry it.
Most of the stations carrying syndication
re-runs of The Outer Limits usually
carry Stargate at some time slot or another.
Re:Wheel of Time (Score:1)
I swear he's gonna pull an Asimov (see: Foundation). I went insane over the first book. I loved the 2nd. I eagerly awaited the third. I got the 4th right when it came out. I got the 5th one pretty early. (See where this is going?)
And now, well, now I just WANT IT TO END! Please, Mr. Jordan, stop opening new subplots. =)
Re:Star Trek similarities unsurprising. (Score:1)
Actually, I think it *was* the first to have transporters. Rememeber that the original Star Trek was pretty low-budget. It was easier to stage transporters than shuttlecraft trips. It's not much different than McCoy's instruments all being fancy salt shakers.
Re:I have watched the entire first season.... (Score:1)
...
"Babylon 5 and Farscape are the only two I can think off that don't fit that mold."
Actually, IMHO, the first season of B5 was OK. It took awhile to get rolling. Same thing with Farscape.
"Balance of Peace" (Score:1)
It's actually Balance of Judgment. Much better, IMO.
Andromeda = "Herc in Space" (Score:1)
Nothing I've seen since has changed that thought.
There's way better stuff on TV. Now if only HBO could package up the second season of the Sopranos for DVD, I could put my home entertainment system to good use again... damn Canadian cable companies =P
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Network: none (Score:1)
Re:Star Trek similarities unsurprising. (Score:1)
She also played Nurse Chapel in the original series. (And the same character as Doctor Chapel and Commander Chapel in some of the movies, according to http://imdb.com/Name?Barrett,+Majel)
She was in the pilot too.
--
Re:SciFi transporter technology (Score:1)
gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear) and as such the interactions would be extraordinarily minute and the alterations to the particles position, K.E., etc... would also be minute,
Yep, and your measurement's precision would also be minute. You have a low resolution (since it's low energy) position measurement, and no real measurement of impulse.
Transporters won't ever work my measuring and duplicating. The only hope is to leave the quantum level alone at all times, like with the quantum teleportation of photons that was demonstrated.
Re:SciFi transporter technology (Score:1)
Re:Ayn Rand? (Score:1)
Re:What about Stargate SG-1 (Score:1)
Compared to what show???
Star Trek LAL (and I like Star Trek)
Babylon 5 (ok, the humans had lower tech, but Andromeda is set MUCH farther in the future(even before the 300+ years since the fall of the Commonwealth.)
Farscape Pure Fantasy technology, with no attempt to explain it(but they do not need to because it is more of a space fantasy like Star Wars.)
SG1 Inconsistent, but at least they make some concessions to just HOW much the tech levels may be different from civilization to civilization(but don't get me going on how the most advanced race in this galaxy(the greys BTW) cannot manage to duplicate, or even understand how a projectile weapon(like a M16!!!) works!!!!)
Earth Final Conflict Have never got to see it, because NO local or Cable station in that TimeWarner caries in Beaumont, TX, caries it.
LEX, Pure Science Fantasy again, so no need.
Andromeda uses appropriate weapons for the situation:
Missiles for long range
Beam weapons only for VERY short range.
Most all hand weapons are projectile based, even though the special effects do not always make it seem so.
In fact the major problem I have with Andromeda is that the special effects people see to have free reign to create whatever they think looks good without regard to whether it is what is being described on screen.
For example, battles in Andromeda usually happen at ranges of light seconds to light MINITES apart(which is why they have to use missiles, because they are self guided
They have gravity control(or maybe inertia control is more accurate). So??? What series does not? Even Babylon 5 had it. Not the humans but some other races had it. If B5 had been set in a space ship rather than on a rotating space station, I bet that they would have found some way for the Humans to have purchased, stolen, or been given gravity control devices, (or not have made it something that was rare.) It is just too much trouble to film a believable Zero G environment. The only show that did it all the time was(I think Tom Corbet Space Cadet!!!, which actually tried to get the physics correctly(for its day.))
One thing that bothered me at first was the fact that no one seemed to be able to hit Dillon with a gun in the first 2 episodes, and the CREW seemed ALMOST immune to the internal defenses of the ship, but it is part of the back story that all Commonwealth solders have ECM devices built into their uniforms and since almost all projectile weapons in Andromeda use smart bullets, that is explained in a logical way. And it is clear that it was intentional because the person trying to shoot him had a VERY surprised look on his face when he missed, and when questioned about it tried to cover up.
Sorry about rambling on so long, but this kind of statement really bothers me, when it is not backed up by examples of what is bothering the person.
James Kenney
Re:Hercules! (Score:1)
James Kenney
Re:here's a question... (Score:1)
James Kenney
Re:Ayn Rand? (Score:1)
I think that honor belongs to The Illuminatus Trilogy. ;) Though they may be right behind it.
-David T. C.
Re:Big time cheese (Score:1)
And sometimes Andromeda's projections, and Rommy.
-David T. C.
Re:They'll NEVER beat Babylon 5 (Score:1)
The first of that, Star Trek, was canceled after 3 years, brought back as an animated series, then as a series of movies.
The other two have enjoyed full seven year runs, and one of them has turned out three movies so far, with another on the way.
By any objective standard, he's a damned successful producer. A total of 17 years of TV, an animated series, and 10 movies were based directly off his concepts.
Everything else that says 'Roddenberry' is from notes, and was produced after his death. (Well, granted, he made a few pilots that didn't pan out, too.) You can't blame a man for writing down a story idea, and having people use it after his death.
-David T. C.
Re:It's all about the ladies (Score:1)
And, of course, he's the one who has to repair her, too.
-David T. C.
Re:What about Stargate SG-1 (Score:1)
And, BTW, for someone who gets the 'best lines', he sure gets some lines that make him out to be a complete idiot.
And I kinda have to point out, the other characters really do get more story then he does. For example, with Daniel we have his wife and her children, with T'ealk (sp?) you have his wife, his son, his mentor, heck he has a whole planet, with Sam, you have her father, etc, plus Jollanare's (sp?) backstory...
All those are (or were) important and reoccuring characters. All Jack has is an ex-wife we've only seen in the movie, and a dead son. Everyone else has a direct connection to the other side of the Stargate, all Jack has is he's friends with Thor.
For him being the star, the show is actually a lot more balanced then other shows.
-David T. C.
I love LEXX (Score:1)
Re:Star Trek similarities unsurprising. (Score:1)
She can wrap me up with that tail anytime. :-) (Score:1)
On YTV she starred in Deep Water Black for onw show.
She's very, very hot.
john
Re:Canadian accent (Score:1)
As a Canadian, here's how you, too, can learn to speak like an American:
1) "About." This is the hardest word to get down, because it's so different and so commonly used. Americans typically pronounce it "Abowwwt," as if someone just punched them in the stomach. If you're having trouble getting this down, ask a friend for assistance. If they're anything like my friends, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to oblige you with a quick jab to your gut.
2) If you currently use the words "sorry," "pardon me," "excuse me," or "thank you" more than twenty times an hour, then I'm sorry but you can stop now; there's no way you'll ever pass for an American. My most sincere apologies.
3) When you're typing something with an "our" on the end, there's a good chance that there is no "u." (Apparently, Webster ever liked "u.")
4) A bag is now a sack. A Joe Louis' replaced by a Twinkie. Washrooms? Not anymore; now you use the bathroom. And you wait on line to use one, not in. A keener's now a brownnoser. Elastics are rubber bands. Runners are sneakers... track pants are sweat pants, a pop's a soda or coke, and brown bread's referred to as whole wheat...
What I'm really saying, of course, is that you'll never be able to do it. The Yanks have us, m'lads. They have us outmatched, outwitted and outnumbered when it comes mashing up the queen's English. I say you just do what I do; give up! Straighten your toque, crack open another two-four, place your arse upon the chesterfield, and watch yourself another Toronto-filmed Hollywood movie on your telly. That's the spirit! Cheers.
James (off to score some timbits..)
Re:Ayn Rand? (Score:1)
Ah, but they can't. They have a psychotic desire to control everyone and everything around them, and to bend their environement (and other people) to their will no matter what the cost. Even if that cost means that there is no freedom in the future.
Re:Teen appeal (Score:1)
Re:Nietzcheans! (Score:1)
Re:Ayn Rand? (Score:1)
Blake's 7, et al. (Score:1)
Which brings me to my point... I can't believe that (while skimming) I didn't see anyone mention the classic BBC sci-fi "Blake's 7"! A show in which they killed off main characters! (And I don't mean the occasional "Tasha Yar" every couple of series) Oh, and they STAYED dead (unlike most original Trek characters)
B7 was also not crawling with token aliens like many other shows do. Star Trek shows are all about 8 or 10 humans, one vulcan, and the flavor-of-the-week alien-or-android. Blake's7 was about a galaxy inhabited by Earthling humans who colonized the stars. That allowed for (1)cheaper production costs ;) and (2)more focus on the fight against the tyrannical federation <cough> than on battling the latest "worse than the last kind of alien" foes that shows like ST:DS9 and ST:Voyager kept pulling out of their asses. :)
Not that I don't enjoy Star Trek... I just like Blake's 7 (oh, and Babylon 5) better. ;)
Re:'Roddenberry'? (Score:2)
For example, I remember hearing years ago about a show that Gene wanted to make about aliens who come to Earth and seem to be friendly and to bring peace and prosperity and the advantages of their technology, etc. etc. But they also have some "evil" enemies that they need humanities help fighting. The premise was, I think supposed to be that humanity realized that they were being taken advantage of, and managed to throw them out with the help of the aliens enemies, who promptly moved in and took up the exact same position. It seems to me that the show idea I heard about was turned into Earth: Final Conflict. Obviously it's changed a lot, but the basic idea seems to be there.
Basically, Gene is producing new TV shows the same way that L. Ron Hubbard is writing new books.
It's a decent show. (Score:2)
And as for Majel, she is a wonderful person. I met her at a convention in Montreal a few years ago, and she really cares about what the fans think of the shows created by her late husband, Gene, and of Science Fiction in General. Back when there was a lot of conflict between Babylon 5 fans and STrek fans, she agreed with JMS do a part in a B5 show to demonstrate that B5 was an O.K. show to like, and both STrek fans and B5 fans show learn to appreachiate each other's shows.
I'm a fan of The Old Series, and of the follow ons, I am also a B5 fan. And I like Andromeda. I am just tired of people who dis things just to make themselves look important, like the Rolling Stone used to do with album reviews.
ttyl
Farrell
American Accents (Score:2)
I'm from South Dakota, and within South Dakota there are three distinct accents - Black Hills, East River and Rez (Rex being those from the Indian Reservations). Why I say this, is last weekend I went back to South Dakota for a wedding, and all the major accents were present for the wedding.
I have a bit of the Rez accent, along with some Black Hills, while my sister whom is living East River and on a Reservation, has some East River, Rez and a bit of the Minnesooota to her accent.
The same is true on a broader scale for the entire country. People from the south do not all sound alike. If all the states are as diverse as South Dakota, there's a whole bunch of accents. And I'd hope that in Canada there are as many differences as there are in the US.
why? (Score:2)
It's "nitpick" (Score:2)
Re:Canadian accent (Score:2)
duh.
Re:Andromeda disappoints me. (Score:2)
Silly pubescent teen. Someday you'll stop playing "choke the chicken" to mere TV shows and notice that there are *real* women in the world that will perform that service for you
Re:Andromeda disappoints me. (Score:2)
hmm..perhaps its time for some absestos underwear, I feel things getting a little toasty
LOL - claiming that because someone really, REALLY dislikes a show they lack a sense of humor will generally get you some flames, yes =)
I mean come on, there is something strangely humorous about a dead guy, a janitor, a severed robot head, and a chick who was turned into a love slave as punishment, all stuck on a bug looking ship.
Yes, the situation itself could be quite humorous - if it was carried off with any talent at all. I'm not so sure the problem is with the actors though - I'm more inclined to think the reason the series is SO bad is they lack talented writers.
Although, the basic setting (minus the sex) was done before, in a show called Red Dwarf. =)
'Roddenberry'? (Score:2)
Re:Canadian accent (Score:2)
All speech is accented; accent is simply one of the phonic characteristics of speech.
Re:Andromeda disappoints me. (Score:2)
I ask as someone who likes good science fiction - and also quality works from other genres - and is consistently disappointed by 95% of the sci-fi I see. (Last good sci-fi film? Gattaca. And I got bored of the Star Wars franchise when I stopped being a teenager.)
Re:That's very true. (Score:2)
Re:Buck Rogers (Score:2)
But never retold in nearly as entertaining a fashion as in...
Chelloveck
Premise? (Score:2)
I only saw half of one episode, so I was never really sure of the premise before reading this review. Still, of what I saw, much of the dialog was rhetoric about what a great and moral people the Confederation was, and how the captain was going to uphold their ethics at any cost. From that ep, it had sounded like the Confederation was still a going concern.
So, given that the Confederation collapsed n-years ago and Andromeda and her captain seem to be the last remnants of it, what's his goal? Is he trying to rebuild the Confederation? If so, how does he intend to do so by flying around from rock to rock? Or is he just playing interstellar evangelist, pulling into town, moralizing a bit, and leaving again?
That's a serious question, BTW. I actually liked the show (in my own twisted way, much as I also enjoyed "Space Rangers") but knowing what he's trying to accomplish would probably help.
Chelloveck
Andromeda: typical Roddenbery tripe (Score:2)
Star Trek. Largely this has to do with
cartoonish Sci-Fi. I hate all these masked
actors pretend to be aliens
and two hands
dislike Roddenbery's humanist message:
nothing wrong with the message except it
constantly smells of moralizing.
That said, I watched Final Conflict for a while.
The first season was strong because aliens were
kept to a minimum and looked like an excuse to
explore human drama. As well, they had hints
dropped of mysteries and villainous nature of
aliens. There were no good guys and bad guys,
it was all in question. Then they started to
featire aliens more, answered a few key questions,
killed off the most talented cast members
replacing them with people who have no concept
of acting and now the show is unwatchable.
I did watch Andromeda a bit mostly because ny
local station runs the episodes at 2am when I come
home from work. The show displays complete lack
of imagination. Suffice it to say that one alien
species is an overgrown bug and you can see the
plastic costume on a human actor. Character
interaction is mostly a moralizing tripe. In fact
the only characters that look human are the
Nietzcheans. They hold grudges, conflict with
each other and are generally bastards enough.
Tyr is probably the best acted character too.
I guess Dylan Hunt in a totally Nietzchean world
would make for a good show about why Roddenbery's
ideals don't work. But alas, the script makes
Mr. Hunt into a sort of a hero, rather than a
lunatic that he is.
I would be even shallow enough to watch the show
if some hot booty was on display. Unfortunately
the cast is lacking in that department too.
Re:Sorry, I missed this... (Score:2)
They are a
Re:What about Stargate SG-1 (Score:2)
Re:Andromeda = "Herc in Space" (Score:2)
I enjoyed the "other" Herc spin-off, Jack of all Trades. Kinda corny, but it had a lot of potential. Unfortunately it got terminated before the writers found their stride.
--
Re:What about Stargate SG-1 (Score:2)
Sad thing is that the Andromeda station (different station) is doing the same thing:(
Re:What about Stargate SG-1 (Score:2)
Stargate SG-1 rocks. I didn't watch it for the first time until about a year ago, mainly because of Richard Dean Anderson... but I sat through an episode, and I'm hooked now. I'm now catching up on reruns, and I find that the last season will start soon. Aak! Why didn't I find out about it sooner!?
As for the ontopic discussion... Andromeda didn't do this for me at all. I'm annoyed most of the time by the actors. Maybe it isn't them, maybe it's the writers... but they annoy me. 300 years after the commonwealth collapsed, Harper can still find t-shirts and hawaiian shirts to wear. ugh. And don't get me started on Worf-alike.
Re:Star Trek similarities unsurprising. (Score:2)
But at least it has Bender!
- - - - -
Re:Let's just drag Roddenberry's name thru the mud (Score:2)
True enough.
But it's on FOX (broadcast TV) where I live. I don't watch enough TV to justify the cost of cable.
Sure, Andromeda is cheezy, but compared to [each month's variant of] "Survivor" and "Millionaire", I hope they drag Gene's name through the mud a few more times.
Better cheezy sci-fi than no sci-fi at all.
TV Sci Fi, books, music & IP, oh my! (Score:2)
In music there is a long tradition of being influenced by other peoples works and doing your own riffs off of an existing work. Noone points a finger and says, "You're ripping off Louis Armstrong!" when they go to listen to a jazz artist.
I vividly recall in school during english class when they explained that every book is based on one of essental conflicts. Man vs Man, Man vs himself, Man vs Nature, or Man vs Machine. (Yes, you can animorphize something else, but it still has man-like qualties, or we would not be able to relate to it. The truly alien is, well, alien.) I was devistated. What point was there in reading books anymore? I mean, they were all the same in the end. Eventually I learned to celebrate the differences in books, even books that were very close to each other had huge differences in the details. And that's one of the reasons I read, to be absorbed into a captivating universe. If I'm lucky, I might see 12 completely origial books in my life (arguably original. I personally believe when something's original enough to be considered a new genre, it's original. I know a lot of lit majors who'd disagree. So be it.) does that mean I should forsake all non orignal books? Of course not. Does that make the orginals better? Nope. I know a lot of people who can't stand Neuromancer (admitably, probably not a lot in this crowd, but still), and by my previous definition it was Original.
The point of this rather roundabout naritive is that something does not have to be totally original to be enjoyable. Take delight in revisiting an old friend, looked at from a slightly different angle.
This is the same problem we have with intelectual propiety. There are a finite number of good ideas in the universe, the longer we go aorund saying, "this good idea is mine!" the smaller the remaining solution space for the function H(idea_number) becomes, the the more likely that n is going to hash close enough to n-1 to infringe. Common sense.
Common sense isn't. -- Voltaire
--
Remove the rocks to send email
Stargate SG-1 so-so movie, better series (Score:2)
Andromeda's not bad. Different feel without the intellectual depth of Zena. [grin]
I guess sg's cool because the good guys don't have the technical advantage and have to scrap it out. Just like real people. The cultural diversity (alien species) angle is handled way better, more variety, more depth and always a sense that there's more to an alien society than what can be told in a single episode
I guess that's a good point too, about serialized dramas. The set up needs to be such that enables the writers to tell a variety of stories.
Another nice thing about stargate is that they aren't stuck on some damn spaceship forever.
Re:Sorbo's got a gig for life (Score:2)
No network. It's a syndicated show. (Score:2)
Purple people eater (Score:2)
Re:Real science (Score:2)
Yes. To be precise, those two things are:
It's good that they're not relying on boguson particles to save the day, but that by itself does not mean they have good science.
quantum slipstream? I could have sworn I had heard the term beforeYes. You heard it before on Star Trek [google.com]. I'm pretty sure that Voyager even phase modulated [google.com] the quantum sliptream at some point. The horror!
You left out an important Magog detail (Score:2)
Re:Andromeda disappoints me. (Score:2)
1: Theres almost NO sci-fi on right now, its all lawyer, doctor, or sex shows.
2: While they aren't that great -- these shows really are the best thing on television during the saturday afternoon CRAPORAMA. Saturday afternoon is really a wasteland for quality programming, and even something like Andromeda and EFC where they've made 3/4ths of an effort really stands out amongst the "Private Benjamin" saturday movie and the body by jake infomercials.
Re:Andromeda disappoints me. (Score:2)
My problem with these shows is, first of all, they're targeted towards women and gay men with all their touchy feely crap :) Second of all -- Most of the shows are just about sex. I've had sex, I don't need to see a show about it. If I wanted to see T&A I'd pop a porno and watch that.
Majel's involvement is... (Score:2)
Her involvement with EFC has been variable over the lifetime of the show, and I don't know what her current involvement level is with Andromeda, but my understanding in general is that she wants to ensure that the shows stay true to Gene's vision.
Re:They'll NEVER beat Babylon 5 (Score:2)
JMS is really talented guy, scripting entire series of B5 and finding time to answer his fans through all of it.
On the other hand, Roddenberry is a producer who had one good idea his whole life and milked it for all its worth. Other than Star Trek, he's produced nought but scores of second rate, short lived sci fi series.
Re:They'll NEVER beat Babylon 5 (Score:2)
Re:They'll NEVER beat Babylon 5 (Score:2)
Real science (Score:2)
One thing I've personally enjoyed about Andromeda is that the writers seem to know a thing or two about science. For example, look at the episode with the teleporter. The big argument against Trek's transporters has always been the uncertainty principle. Usually everyone just shrugs and points out that mainstream TV audiences don't know anything about physics, so just let them be dumb and happy.
On Andromeda, when Harper proudly announces that he's constructing a teleporter, the first thing Beka says is "don't look now, but Dr. Heisenberg wants to have a word with you." No long explanation of the principle, they just figure we're intelligent enough to get it. Nice to be treated as an intelligent person by prime time television for a change.
They did take a bit of time to explain quantum entanglement, though. I had recently read the Slashdot story [slashdot.org] about it, and thought it was interesting to see that show up. The whole time travel thing got a bit weird, though.
Anyone know about quantum slipstream? I could have sworn I had heard the term before this show started. I want to say it's a real theory, but I'm not sure.
Overall, the way I describe Andromeda to people is "good writing, crappy production". Too much T&A factor for my taste (like what TNT did to season 5 of B5), and I think the space sequences could use some improvement. Like the episode where another ship was destroyed 5 light minutes away, and the AI had to remind the captain that he couldn't do anything to help, since the images they were seeing were 5 minutes old. (Yes! Writers who know about the speed of light!) But I think the exterior animation showed them considerably closer than 5 light minutes apart. sigh...
Andromeda disappoints me. (Score:2)
But, for me, ANdromeda has failed to not suck for the most part. Or, to be clearer, it has not declined to prevent itself from avoiding not being the opposite of not blowing.
Or something.
They had a limitation to the Slipstream that I found neat: only an organic pilot could navigate it. This keeps it from being all magical like in Star Trek. They made a loophole to that in the tenth episode. And I think that they started the series with no transporters, but they invented one in episode three or four which, by the way, also lets you travel through time. And of course it was the second time travel episode so far.
I don't know. Maybe I'll catch a particularly good episode one of these days and get back on the wagon... but not today.
Re:Star Trek similarities unsurprising. (Score:2)
"The year is 1987 and NASA launches the last of America's deep space probes. In a freak mishap Ranger 3 and its pilot Captain William 'Buck' Rogers are blown out of their trajectory into an orbit which freezes his life support systems and returns Buck Rogers to Earth 500 years later."
cue cheesey theme music
Bad names (Score:2)
The actors all have names that were thought out way too much: "Trance Gemini", "Seamus Zelazy Harper", "Beka Valentine", "Tyr Anasazi". The names remind me of bad fan fiction.
At least the names don't have random apostrophes insert into the name. Memo to frustrated writers out there: If you have a name with an apostrophe, that's a good indicator that your novel sucks. I don't think it's a coincidence that Star Trek Voyager had a major character with an apostrophe'd name. You could've predicted the series was going to be lacking just based on that.
--
Re:Star Trek similarities unsurprising. (Score:2)
This pilot failed to sell (in an era dominated by Planet of the Apes and Bionics), but the series concept was tried once more as Planet Earth [imdb.com] which also did not sell. Majel starred in both of them.
Re:Nietzcheans! (Score:2)
Re:Star Trek similarities unsurprising. (Score:2)
People who think so, clearly don't read much classic sci-fi.
And I'm not saying this to knock Roddenberry, to this day I rewatch the original and the next generation(I can't stomach Voyager, although Deep Space 9 had it's shining moments). Star Trek was/is a cool and innovative concept, both in it's original form, and in the next generation incarnation, but the technologies and elements that each one was built on were far from ground breaking or unique, from a sci-fi perspective. From a tv perspective, of course it looks like the father of all sci-fi.
Andromeda seems to have elements of the Heechee (Score:2)
I think that the Heechee saga (about 4-5 books) would make a really cool movie or series. Wonder why nobody's picked it up?
LEXX is cool (Score:2)
I had a similar reaction to the X-files (thought it was dumb but got into it several years after it started).
Anyway I think I've seen the whole third year and still like it a lot. In fact, I'm thinking about getting the original trilogy of movies on DVD.
I think they've got a really interesting cast of characters with the cowardly security guard, the sweet/lizardly sex goddess and cool dead-guy.
The only thing I think sucks is the damn robot head. They should edit that out!
Besides they have cool CGI.
Re:Andromeda disappoints me. (Score:2)
Pretty odd coincidence... (Score:2)
To sum up rambling: Ok show, if I run into it again I will give it a go.
--
Re:Nietzcheans! (Score:2)
How many brooding tribal aliens do we need? (Score:2)
I'm sick to death of darkly brooding, overly simplified alien characters who are dominated by their need to struggle over their particular cultural/religious heritage. They are supposed to be complex and interesting because they have these complex, interesting ethnic problems. But whether it's Worf the brooding Klingon, or the brooding sword-wielding guy on Farscape, or the brooding guy on Andromeda always trying to out-macho Sorbo, they're just as boring as darkly brooding people in real life.
If I did have to choose an oversimplified alien from tv it would be Quark. He may have been predictable, but at least he wasn't brooding.
Re:Canadian accent (Score:2)
-
Where can I see it? (Score:2)
-
Re:Andromeda disappoints me. (Score:2)
Rimmer.
> a janitor,
Lister and/or Kryten.
> a severed robot head,
Holly and/or Kryten.
> and a chick who was turned into a love slave as punishment,
That's either the resurrected Christine Kochanski, or you'll have to make do with a 3-million-year-evolved ship's cat.
> all stuck on a bug looking ship.
...all (for a significant part of the run) stuck on StarBug 1...
The only difference is one is euro-kinky, canadian/german deadpan, and the other is blatant english farce.
...and then there are the cut-scenes from Mystery Science Theater 3000...
--Blair
"Ecclesiastes 1:9"
Hercules! (Score:2)
They could at least have cut his hair, sheesh
Ayn Rand? (Score:2)
You don't mean Ayn Rand, do you? What a bleak and horrible future they live in! And before I get downmodded, I'd like to point out that I read - voluntarily - all of Atlas Shrugged, including the 40-page monologue on the evils of anything other than pure cutthroat capitalism, so I do know what I'm talking about when I say that Rand was evil. Evil I say! I still have a hangover from that book, and I read it two years ago.
Re:I think I see where the Nietzcheans went wrong (Score:2)
Um, I liked some of the ideas (Score:2)
Teen appeal (Score:2)
That's very true. (Score:2)
real science fiction themes (Score:3)
One big difference with Star Trek is that on Andromeda they don't solve their difficulties by "magic", i.e. they don't suddenly realize that they can 'convert their deflector array into an ice cube maker & chill out the attacking aliens'. Also Andromeda isn't as concerned with the characters personal lives---it's an action/adventure show.
p.s. the official web site for the show is http://www.andromedatv.com
Re:To nitpick (Score:3)
Chris
--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Re:Andromeda disappoints me. (Score:3)
LEXX was, perhaps, the WORST "sci-fi" show I'd ever seen (which is saying a lot) I'd take 5 EFC/Andromeda-type series over that tripe...
MHO, anyway.
Andromeda rocks.... (Score:3)
It's all about the ladies (Score:3)
Re:Andromeda disappoints me. (Score:3)
Overall a lot of the tech expositive episodes seemed to establish the limits and differentiate itself from Trek's stuff, and often (but maybe not always) does it in a much more plausible manner. About the only thing that's really a stretch from real physics is the artificial gravity stuff, and by extention the slipstream (which is explained to be poorly understood in theshow's context anyway, it just works). I epecially like how the slipstream's randomness removes takes out the geography of everything, the lack of it in Star Trek was something that always bothered me.
Anyone who wants to give this show a chance should definitely check out http://allsystems.org, which has a lot of background info that helps establish some familiarity with the show's universe, and goes a lot more in depth to stuff that gets a passing mention in the show or seems to be written out of thin air.
It IS derivitive (Score:3)
The best part about Andromeda (Score:3)
Having said that, by far the best part of the Andromeda series is Lexa Doig [novaheart.com]. What can I say? she's really cute [novaheart.com].
--CTH
---
I have watched the entire first season.... (Score:3)
...and the jury is still out. I was just getting to the point of not really being interested in it, but then the season finale came out and really kicked some butt. There is some interesting character development going on, and things are starting to come together.
I'm going to give season two a chance. But as I think back, I think that Star Trek TNG's first season: LAME, Star Trek: DS9 First Season: Oh, my god, this is LAME. Voyager: Took a few seasons and Seven of Nine (not for her boobs) to drag it out of the LAME pile to the passable pile.
It always seems that the syndicated Sci-Fi shows always suffer from budget crunches the first season or so, and then take off. Then just as they reach their break even point for syndication is when they are getting good.
Babylon 5 and Farscape are the only two I can think off that don't fit that mold.
TomStar Trek similarities unsurprising. (Score:5)
Andromeda is based on a concept of Gene Roddenberry's originally intended for the Star Trek universe. It's 300 years after the Federation has fallen.
I guess Paramount wasn't interested, so somebody else did it.
(In case there are a few people that don't realize it, Gene Roddenberry is the creator of Star Trek. Majel is his widow, the voice of most computers and Deanna Troi's mother.)
Re:Nietzcheans! (Score:5)
Utterly so.
But in defence of the scriptwriters, any large socio/political group that misunderstands Nietzche is likely to turn out exactly as the show's Nietzchaens did.
Which is to say, yeah, the Nietzcheans in the show have Nietzche all wrong. But they're pretty much what I'd expect a bunch of Nietzche-misinterpreters to act like, so IMHO the scriptwriters got it right.
(Of course, whether the scriptwriters intended to get it right, is another question entirely. My hunch is that it's just an accident ;-)
Sorbo's got a gig for life (Score:5)
--
I think I see where the Nietzcheans went wrong (Score:5)
Furthermore, I thought that the "overman" had a higher degree of moral development, but not necessarily physical development, according to Nietzche. I could be wrong on that one, though.
If anyone wants a quick overview of Nietzche, Encarta actually has a nice little article. ( http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&